[Avodah] Kofin Oso

[Chana Luntz]

RMB writes:

> In my experience, it is usually explained that kefiyah can produce a
> valid get because the kefiyah is halachically legitimate (mandatory and
> thus permitted), Then the "rotzeh ani" is really a haaramah, one that
> bothers me because (1) we don't allow haaramos in dinim deOraisa, and
> (2) it smells so inquisitional.
> 
> I am suggesting that get anusah is only a problem when it's a pure
> oneis, with no ratzon at all backing it. That a ratzon overshadowed
> by another ratzon is sufficient for a get to be valid -- if the
> ratzon's existence could be brought to light (thus "ad sheyomar").


Hold on, hold on.

It seems to me that if we want to discuss this topic, it would be really
handy to see what the gemora has to say on the subject (and not just the
Rambam).

While the reference to rotze ani comes up in a whole bunch of places
(including the mishna in Arechin), let's look at two sources, which I will
quote in Hebrew and in (half translated) English:

The first source is Kiddushin 49b-50a - and they are discussing a sale where
the man in question only wanted the sale to go through if he in fact made
aliyah, and then he didn't manage it, but he never mentioned anything about
this at the time of the sale, and Rava therefore ruled that this was a valid
sale, despite his intention, based on the principle of devarim shebelev
ainun devarim.  The gemora then goes on to discuss how do we know this
principle:

אמר רבא: הוי דברים שבלב, ודברים שבלב אינם דברים. מנא ליה לרבא הא? אילימא מהא
דתנן: +ויקרא א+ יקריב אותו - מלמד שכופין אותו, יכול בעל כרחו? תלמוד לומר:
לרצונו, הא כיצד? כופין אותו עד שיאמר רוצה אני; ואמאי? הא בלביה לא ניחא ליה!
אלא לאו משום דאמרינן דברים שבלב אינן דברים. ודילמא שאני התם, דאנן סהדי דניחא
ליה בכפרה! אלא מסיפא: וכן אתה מוצא בגיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים, כופין אותו עד
שיאמר רוצה אני; ואמאי? הא בלביה לא ניחא ליה! אלא לאו משום דאמרינן דברים שבלב
אינן דברים. ודלמא שאני התם, משום דמצוה לשמוע דברי חכמים!

"Rava said, these are devarim shebelev and devarim shebelev anam devarim.
>From where does Rava know this? if you say from here:  it is taught in a
Mishna (Vayikra 1:3) “v’yikarev oso”, to teach that they force him [to bring
a korban he is require to bring], I might have thought against his will, the
Torah teaches, (Vayikra 1:3) “l’rotzono”.  How is this?  They force him
until he says rotzei ani.  Now why?  Certainly in his heart he was not
desirous.  Rather is it not because we say devarim shebalev anun devarim?
But perhaps it is different there, because we can witness that the person
really desires atonement [which he is only going to get if he brings the
sacrifice].  Rather from the end [of the braisa], and so you find with
gittei nashim and shichrurei avadim that they force him until he says rotze
ani.  And why?  Certainly in his heart he was not desirous. Rather is it not
because devarim shebalev anan devarim?  But perhaps it is different there
because it is a mitzvah to listen to the words of the Chachamim…"

As you can see from this the gemora itself brings a possible reason why a
get the result of force is valid as being because it is a mitzvah to listen
to the words of the Sages.  On the other hand, given that we do hold that
devarim shebelev anun devarim, then that can also be the reason why it works
(it is just that it cannot be the source to know this ruling, since there is
an alternative explanation).

The second source is Baba Basra 47b-48a - here they are discussing the
validity of a sale if in order to engineer the sale, the seller was forcibly
hung up eg on a tree or tortured:

אמר רב הונא: תליוהו וזבין - זביניה זביני; מ"ט? כל דמזבין איניש, אי לאו דאניס
לא הוה מזבין, ואפילו הכי זביניה זביני. ודילמא שאני אונסא דנפשיה מאונסא
דאחריני! אלא כדתניא: +ויקרא א'+ יקריב אותו - מלמד שכופין אותו, יכול בעל
כרחו? תלמוד לומר: לרצונו, הא כיצד? כופין אותו עד שיאמר רוצה אני. ודלמא שאני
התם, דניחא ליה דתיהוי ליה כפרה! ואלא מסיפא: וכן אתה אומר בגיטי נשים, כופין
אותו עד שיאמר רוצה אני. ודלמא שאני התם, דמצוה לשמוע דברי חכמים! אלא סברא
הוא, אגב אונסיה גמר ומקנה. מותיב רב יהודה: גט המעושה, בישראל - כשר, ובעכו"ם
- פסול, ובעכו"ם - חובטין אותו ואומרין לו: עשה מה שישראל אומר לך; ואמאי? התם
נמי נימא: אגב אונסיה גמר ומגרש! הא איתמר עלה, אמר רב משרשיא: דבר תורה אפילו
בעכו"ם כשר, ומה טעם אמרו בעכו"ם פסול? כדי שלא תהא כל אחת ואחת הולכת ותולה
עצמה ביד עכו"ם ומפקעת עצמה מיד בעלה


"Rav Huna said: if they hung him until he sold, the sale is a valid sale.
What is the reason? In any personal sale, if it were not for compulsion a
person would not sell, and even so, the sale is a valid sale.  But maybe it
is different if he compels himself than if others compel him?  Rather like
it is taught in a braisa : (Vayikra 1:3) “y’karev oso”, to teach that they
force him, I might have thought against his will, the Torah teaches,
(Vayikra 1:3) “l’rotzono”.  How is this?  They force him until he says rotze
ani.  But perhaps it is different there, because he was desirous of the
atonement.  Rather from the end of the braisa: and similarly is said with
gittei nashim, they force him until he says rotze ani.  But perhaps it is
different there, since it is a mitzvah to listen to the words of the
Chachamim.  Rather it is a svara: because of compulsion it was finalised and
he sold.  Rav Yehuda objected: a coerced get, with a Jew is kosher, with a
non Jew is posel, but with a non Jew –they  can strike him and say to him do
what the Jew [ie beis din] says to you.  And why? There too because of
compulsion it was finalised and he divorced.  It was indeed said on this,
Rav Mesharsha said:  according to the Torah even [coercion] by a non Jew is
kosher, and what is the reason that [coercion] by a non Jew is posel? So
that it should not be that every [woman] should go and place herself in the
hand of the non Jew in order to uproot herself from the hand of her
husband."

Now this gemora seems to state that d'orisa a non Jew's compulsion is also
valid.  Ie there really isn't a harama, what a person says on being
compelled stands whether a sale or get or a korban (which would seem to
suggest that even if the aspect of listening to the words of the Chachamim
were taken out of the picture, on a Torah level, his rotze ani works).  It
is just that the Chachamim were concerned with abuse of this, and so
invalidated any get produced by this method, unless in fact the non Jews are
acting under Jewish orders.

Note also that from a straight reading of the maskana gemora, there is
ultimately no requirement of beis din to be the one forcing, just a Jew
rather than a non Jew (although in the hava mina there is, since there is
clearly only a mitzvah to listen to the Chachamim if they are genuinely
Chachamim). I will try and bring the Shulchan Aruch and discussions on this
another time, as I think this post is long enough (and I need to do other
things), but I hope that this a least gets you into the sugya.  One more
thing to add though, is the gemora in Rosh Hashana 6a which learns out an
obligation on beis din to compel (at least in the case of bringing a
korban).

ועשית - אזהרה לבית דין שיעשוך, למה לי? מיקריב אתו נפקא. דתניא: +ויקרא א+
יקריב אתו - מלמד שכופין אותו, יכול בעל כרחו - תלמוד לומר +ויקרא א+ לרצנו. הא
כיצד? כופין אותו עד שיאמר רוצה אני.

"And you shall do – this is a warning to Beis Din that they should make you
[pay your vow]. But why do I need this?  It is learnt in a braisa [Vayikra
1:3] “v'yekarev oso”, to teach that they force him, I might have thought
against his will, the Torah teaches, [Vayikra 1:3] “l'rotzono”.  How is
this?  They force him until he says rotzei ani."

Now while this gemora does not discuss gittei nashim, the implication would
be that similarly a Beis Din has an obligation to force in the correct
circumstances.

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana